Also, in other news, it appears Skyfall's runtime will be two hours and twenty five minutes, making it around the same length as Casino Royale.

Click to expand...

If it's gonna be that long I hope it has better pacing than CR...

Click to expand...

I've got no problem with that. Casino Royale was paced just fine and with good balance. If it had been nothing but nonstop action nonsense then it would have stupid.

I don't think there is a magic number of films to be limited to. it's more a matter of consistency and the actor's ability and suitability. And so far one Casino Royale is worth more than all the Brosnan films put together.

The trouble with CR, for me, is that the big action scenes are front loaded, then it goes into a more personal bit during the card scenes, then we get the romantic interlude and then we get another big set piece that ends up feeling tacked on (and which, as exciting as it is, doesn't sit well thematically with the rest of the film, which is a series of Mano a Mano conflicts.) And it isn't that I have a problem with romance, it just comes at an odd point in the film (which in fairness is down to the source material) The film also does suffer from Return of the King never ending endings syndrome! OHMSS is of similar length, but for me is better paced.

The trouble with CR... The film also does suffer from Return of the King never ending endings syndrome!

Click to expand...

I have to say I don't know what you mean to say by this.

No film is perfect, but CR was such a huge step up from what the franchise had long become for years and years and years it was like clean fresh water to a man dying of thirst. And it got me interested in the character again.

The film has various point at which it could end, yet doesn’t. I’ve read the book so sort of knew what was coming, but I bet a lot of people sitting there thought it was over after Le Chiffre’s death when Bond and Vesper hooked up. But of course that isn’t the end, because we then get a romantic montage that would have worked fine earlier in the film (see OHMSS again) but at this stage feels somewhat rushed in order to give us an emotional climax (again the book is to blame. Vesper spends the entire book/film hating 007 then falls madly in love with him, for some reason, at the end just in time to kill herself. If anything I think the film handles this better than the book, you do at least get hints she’s warming to him) . Then we go to Venice and the next big set piece where Vesper dies. Maybe this is the end? Nope, we now get Bond pouting on a boat whilst M tells him he’s been a naughty boy but at least he’s learned his lesson. So that’s the end right. Nope, cue the Italian lakes and Mr White. Is that the end? Ok, yes this is the end…

The film is full of good stuff, but sometimes less is more. The ending of OHMSS packs far more emotional weight in my opinion. It’s brutal and ends on a pitch perfect moment, 007 cradling Tracy’s head. We don’t need to see him go after Blofeld, because we know he will, we don’t need to see him broken and bitter because we know he will be. Hell the producers can’t even bring themselves to end the film where the book ends. “The job’s done and the bitch is dead.” Whether that’s because they didn’t want a complete downer of an ending, or whether they didn’t want people thinking Bond was a cold hard bastard (which is odd seeing as that what the entire film is geared towards telling us) is uncertain. Personally I think the film should have ended there (as cool as the Mr White moment is). Daniel Craig is a good enough actor that we know damn well he’s broken up inside about Vesper, and we already know enough to feel some sympathy for her, we don’t need M spelling it out for us.

But therein lies another of the film’s problems (again for me, this is just my take) too much exposition, though at least it isn’t as cringe worthy as Mathis explaining the rules of poker/tells etc

I make it sound like I hate Casino Royale, and I really don’t, it’s a great film, it’s just not quite top five material for me, I have far too many issues with some of the casting and plot contrivances, aside from the above.

I didn't like Mathis being made into a heavy, but that's today's cynicism for you. He wasn't suspected of anything in the book, but this is an adaptation. I wasn't surprised by the ending because I've read the book a number of times over the years so I don't feel anything was wrong. The film did give us a more punctuated ending than the book which I was quite happy with. If the film had indeed ended like the book, well, I'm not sure general audiences would have liked that.

As a film CR is a good introduction to the character particularly as a Fleming Bond. But for a lot of people it's more of a reintroduction because of all the preceding films and all the differing expectations and biases that come with that. The one small hitch was the retaining of Judi Dench as M. I liked her in the film, but it could be confusing for some who might interpret this as a continuation of what came before rather than a clean reboot of the franchise.

Because I had become disillusioned and disinterested with so much of what came before perhaps that made easier for me to accept CR as a more clean restart exercise and not burden it with comparisons to what came before. CR evoked the feeling of the first two Connery films before the Hollywood Bond began to creep into the films. And by the fifth Connery outing (You Only Live Twice) and especially Diamonds Are Forever it was all Hollywood Bond and rarely would we see the Fleming character over the decades until Casino Royale. OHMSS is a blip they didn't stick with.

The thing is, too, is that there are viewers who know Bond only through the films so their view will vary in what they think the character and the films should be. The original books have become largely irrelevant for them much as TOS may be seen as largely irrelevant for fans of the later Trek series and films.

Apologies if this has already been posted (I double checked the last two pages) but it's more than worth sharing again. Sky's "All 6 Bond's having a car chase" trailer. Possibly the greatest thing known to man ([pedant]Even if there is a brief clip from Die Another Day for Pierce amongst the Goldeneye footage which took me out of it. "He's changed his clothes and hair!"[/pedant]):

If the music we've had in the trailers so far is of Thomas Newman's score (I know sometimes it is not) I'm more than willing to giving him a chance. Speaking of the score, Sony Classical will be releasing the score on Oct 22nd. No North American release date yet, but it should be released here around the same time.

Do you view the two Craig films the same way? Or do you give them a pass because they technically both have the gunbarrels. Just not at the front as is traditional.

Anyways, I wasn't having a go at you, just curious. I do like NSNA, but I have issues with the pacing of the film, it's a bit too slow for my tastes. And that has nothing to do with who produced it.

When I saw Raiders in IMAX today, the Skyfall trailer was playing before it. Not the IMAX exclusive trailer sadly, but the film looked awesome in IMAX, so I think I'll push my friends to see it that way when it comes out in two months.

Do you view the two Craig films the same way? Or do you give them a pass because they technically both have the gunbarrels. Just not at the front as is traditional.

Anyways, I wasn't having a go at you, just curious. I do like NSNA, but I have issues with the pacing of the film, it's a bit too slow for my tastes. And that has nothing to do with who produced it.

When I saw Raiders in IMAX today, the Skyfall trailer was playing before it. Not the IMAX exclusive trailer sadly, but the film looked awesome in IMAX, so I think I'll push my friends to see it that way when it comes out in two months.

Click to expand...

Well, both have the typical opening credits sequence. And I give them a pass with the gun barrells because they symbolize his character development. I do hope the next one has the typical gun barrell - prologue - opening credits structure.